IN THE INTEREST OF M.T., A CHILD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile detained under Florida law petitioned for habeas corpus claiming his detention exceeded the statutory twenty-one day maximum. The court upheld the extension to December 13, finding good cause based on judicial unavailability and the petitioner's failure to accept an earlier trial date, despite the petitioner's failure to appear being an improper basis for the extension.
The petition for habeas corpus is denied. While the petitioner's failure to appear cannot constitute good cause, the trial court's stated reasons—the absence of the assigned judge and the substitute judge's unavailability on December 6, coupled with the petitioner's failure to accept the trial court's offer to conduct the hearing on December 7—constitute sufficient good cause for extending the detention.
[1] A juvenile's failure to appear for trial cannot, by itself, constitute good cause for extending a detention period beyond the statutory maximum.
[2] A trial court may extend a juvenile's detention period beyond the statutory maximum for good cause shown.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Petitioner's failure to appear cannot be considered in the determination of good cause.”
The court articulated the controlling legal principle that prior failure to appear is not a valid basis for extending detention under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 16, 1993, petitioner was placed in detention after failing to appear for trial. The original twenty-one day detention period expired on De…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Appear cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner, a juvenile, seeks immediate release from an allegedly illegal continuation of his secured detention past the twenty-one day maximum.
On November 16, 1993, after failing to appear for trial, petitioner was placed in detention on the instant charge. The original twenty-one day period of detention expired on December 6, 1993. At a status conference on December 1, the trial judge informed the parties that he would be on vacation the week of December 6 and scheduled the case for trial on December 13. On December 3, 1993, the state filed an emergency motion to extend detention until December 13, based upon the judge’s unavailability. At the December 3 hearing on the state’s motion to extend the detention period, a substitute judge offered to hear the case on Tuesday, December 7, one-day beyond the detention period. The assistant public defender standing in at this hearing for the assistant assigned to the case stated that he was unsure whether the defense could be prepared by December 7. The defense neither expressly accepted nor rejected the judge’s offer to conduct the hearing on December 7, 1993.
After further colloquy, the court granted the state’s motion to extend the detention period to December 13 for the following reasons: Petitioner’s earlier failure to appear, the absence of the assigned judge which the court found constituted good cause, and the fact that the substitute judge was the only other judge in the juvenile division and was also unavailable on Monday, December 6, the last day of the original detention. The court also pointed out in response to defendant’s request that the matter be set for December 6 that a majority of the circuit judges would be unavailable due to a judicial conference.
The petitioner’s failure to appear cannot be considered in the determination of good cause. P.H. v. Fryer, 570 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We hold, however, that the remaining reasons stated by the court coupled with the petitioner’s failure to accept the trial court’s offer to hear the matter on December 7 constitute good cause for the trial court’s order extending the detention period to December 13, 1993.
Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus is denied.
DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.K. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 897 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. In the Interest of M.T., a child, 627 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). BARFIELD, ALLEN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
J.G. and K.M. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 933 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. E.W. v. Brown, 659 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); In re M.T., 627 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). KAHN, C.J, and THOMAS, J„ Concur; BENTON, J, Dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- P.H. v. Fryer, 570 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)